UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

:
v. :
:
GUY CATRILLO : Mag. No. 09-8130 (MCA)

I, Robert J. Cooke, being duly sworn, state the following is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

From in or about February 2009 to in or about May 2009, in Hudson County, in the District of
New Jersey and elsewhere, defendant

GUY CATRILLO

and others did knowingly and willfully attempt to obstruct, delay, and affect interstate commerce by
extortion under color of official right, by accepting and agreeing to accept corrupt payments that were
paid by another, with that person’s consent, for defendant GUY CATRILLO’s benefit, in exchange for
defendant GUY CATRILLO’s official assistance as specific opportunities arose.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

I further state that I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that this
complaint is based on the following facts:

SEE ATTACHMENT A

continued on the attached page and made a part hereof.

Robert J. Cooke, Special Agent

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence,

July ___, 2009, at Newark, New Jersey

HONORABLE MADELINE COX ARLEO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signature of Judicial Officer
 ATTACHMENT A

I, Robert J. Cooke, am a Special Agent with the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). I have personally participated
in this investigation and am aware of the facts contained herein,
based upon my own participation in this investigation, as well as
information provided to me by other law enforcement officers.
Because this Attachment A is submitted for the limited purpose of
establishing probable cause, I have not included herein the
details of every aspect of the investigation. Statements
attributable to individuals contained in this Attachment are
related in substance and in part, except where otherwise
indicated. All contacts discussed herein were recorded, except
where otherwise indicated.

1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant GUY

CATRILLO (hereinafter, “defendant CATRILLO”) served as a Planning
Aide for the Jersey City, New Jersey, Division of City Planning
(“JCDCP”) or as an official in the Jersey City Mayor’s Action
Bureau. In the planning aide position, defendant CATRILLO helped
administer and provided staff support to the Jersey City Planning
Board, the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Jersey
City Historic Preservation Commission (together, the “Development
Authorities”). In addition, defendant CATRILLO processed,
reviewed and made recommendations concerning real estate
development applications for the Development Authorities and,
according to himself, handled tax abatements. In his position at
the Mayor’s Action Bureau, defendant CATRILLO conducted case work
involving constituents and citizens. Defendant CATRILLO also was
a candidate for election to the Municipal Council of Jersey City
(Ward E) held on or about May 12, 2009. Ultimately, he did not
prevail.

2. At all times relevant to this Complaint:

(A) There was an individual who served as the Vice

President of the Jersey City Board of Education (until on or
about May 2009), and a commissioner of the Jersey City
Housing Authority (“JC Official 1");

(B) There was an individual who represented himself to be

the owner of a consulting firm based in Jersey City (the
“Consultant”);

(C) There was an individual who was an official with the

Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS")
and was a member of the Jersey City Zoning Board of
Adjustment (the "Zoning Board") (“JC Official 2"); and

(D) There was a cooperating witness (the "CW") who had been
 charged with bank fraud in a federal criminal complaint in
May 2006. Thereafter, for the purposes of this
investigation conducted by the FBI, the CW posed as a real
estate developer interested in development in the greater
Jersey City area. The CW represented that the CW did
business in numerous states, including New York and New
Jersey, and that the CW paid for goods and services in
interstate commerce.

3. On or about February 4, 2009, defendant CATRILLO, JC

Official 2 and the CW met at a restaurant in Jersey City. During
this meeting, defendant CATRILLO was advised by the CW that the
CW was interested in developing real estate in Jersey City, and
that the CW was looking for government officials that the CW
could “own,” who could get the CW “approvals” for the CW’s
projects, and who were not “straight arrows.”

4. Defendant CATRILLO then agreed to accept $10,000 from

the CW “to start” and agreed to accept more payments as the
approvals started and as defendant CATRILLO began to introduce
the CW to other officials who also could assist the CW with the
CW’s real estate development interests in Jersey City.

5. On or about February 9, 2009, defendant CATRILLO, JC

Official 2 and the CW met at a restaurant in Weehawken, New
Jersey. Before JC Official 2 arrived for the meeting, defendant
CATRILLO accepted $5,000 in cash from the CW. As defendant
CATRILLO accepted this payment, defendant CATRILLO was informed
by the CW that defendant CATRILLO was receiving this payment “to
start.” Additionally, defendant CATRILLO agreed to assist the CW
with the CW’s “approvals,” to “expedite” such approvals in
connection with the CW’s real estate development interests in
Jersey City, and to introduce the CW to other individuals who
could assist the CW with these matters.

6. On or about March 16, 2009, defendant CATRILLO, JC

Official 2 and the CW met at a restaurant in Weehawken, New
Jersey. During the meeting, defendant CATRILLO indicated that
the Jersey City Municipal Council voted on every zoning change.
The CW, alluding to the fact that defendant CATRILLO would likely
be elected to the Council, remarked that this was “music to my
ears” because “I got you opposite me.” Defendant CATRILLO then
replied, “But I don’t know you though [meaning defendant CATRILLO
would not acknowledge their prior relationship],” to which the CW
stated: “That’s right. That’s how we do business. No one knows
me. You never saw me. You don’t know my name. No trace or
nothing man. . . .” Defendant CATRILLO also indicated that he
could talk to other council members with respect to prospective
approvals or zoning changes for the CW. After the meeting in the
restaurant, defendant CATRILLO and the CW continued to discuss
matters outside of the restaurant, where defendant CATRILLO
agreed to, among other things, expedite prospective development
matters for the CW that would come before Jersey City
government’s planning department. Thereafter, defendant CATRILLO
accepted $5,000 in cash. Defendant CATRILLO stated that he was
going to put this money “directly” into the campaign. Defendant
CATRILLO went on to state that ultimate approvals and zoning
changes could not be guaranteed by defendant CATRILLO, citing one
example where one project was not carried forth due to public
pressure. Thereafter, the CW asked defendant CATRILLO if the CW
had defendant CATRILLO’s support, to which defendant CATRILLO
answered, “Yes.” Defendant CATRILLO further indicated that he
would introduce the CW to other council members and community
groups to assist the CW with obtaining approvals for the CW’s
development projects.

7. On or about March 24, 2009, defendant CATRILLO met JC

Official 1, the Consultant and the CW at a diner in Jersey City.
At the start of the meeting, defendant CATRILLO was informed by
JC Official 1 that once defendant CATRILLO was elected to the
city council, the CW would be looking for defendant CATRILLO’s
help with respect to the CW’s purported development issues,
including issues related to a project on Garfield Avenue.
Defendant CATRILLO thereafter indicated that he was “pro
development.” Defendant CATRILLO further indicated that if he
was elected, it would make sense for defendant CATRILLO to serve
as the city council’s designee on one of the land-use boards.
This would have the effect of making defendant CATRILLO more
valuable to the CW’s purported development efforts in Jersey
City. At the conclusion of this meeting, defendant CATRILLO was
informed by the CW that the CW would give defendant CATRILLO
another $5,000 and that defendant CATRILLO should not forget the
CW on development matters involving the CW.

8. On or about April 2, 2009, at approximately 9:17 a.m.,

FBI agents intercepted an incoming call from defendant CATRILLO
to the Consultant’s cell phone. During the conversation,
defendant CATRILLO stated that the CW’s “style is not right for
some people.” The Consultant responded that defendant CATRILLO
and the Consultant should meet because the CW was “talking a
substantial number,” which is believed to be a reference to the
amount of the payment that the CW had been offering in exchange
for defendant CATRILLO’S contemplated official assistance.
Defendant CATRILLO was informed by the Consultant that the CW had
asked the Consultant to select “4 or 5 council people” whom the
Consultant believed to be “worthy of a donation,” a reference to
the money that the CW was willing to offer in exchange for
candidates’ anticipated official assistance in favor of the CW’s
purported development initiatives in Jersey City. The Consultant
mentioned that when the Consultant had brought up defendant
CATRILLO to the CW, the Consultant had been informed by the CW,
“I’ve already taken care of Guy [CATRILLO].” Later in the
conversation, defendant CATRILLO also was assured by the
Consultant that “in E Ward, you’re the only one on the list.”

9. On or about April 23, 2009, defendant CATRILLO met the

Consultant and the CW at a diner in Jersey City. During this
meeting, defendant CATRILLO was informed by the CW of the need
for a zone change with respect to the CW’s purported development
of a property on Garfield Avenue in Jersey City and that the CW
wanted defendant CATRILLO to expedite the CW’s approvals.
Defendant CATRILLO further was informed by the CW that the CW had
$5,000 in cash for defendant CATRILLO and would give defendant
CATRILLO another $5,000 after the election, to which defendant
CATRILLO responded, “Okay.” Defendant CATRILLO further
responded, “No, not at all,” in response to the CW’s statement
“just don’t forget me.” Later in the conversation, defendant
CATRILLO agreed with the CW that the CW’s name would not be
reported in connection with the receipt of this money.
Thereafter, defendant CATRILLO accepted $5,000 in cash in an
envelope from the CW outside of the diner. During this portion
of the conversation, the CW asked defendant CATRILLO to make sure
to expedite the CW’s matters. Defendant CATRILLO shook the CW’s
hand and, shortly thereafter, referring to the money, said that
“it” would keep everybody “going” and “trust me.”

10. On or about April 27, 2009, at approximately 5:46

p.m., FBI agents intercepted an incoming call from defendant
CATRILLO to the Consultant’s cell phone. During the
conversation, the Consultant asked defendant CATRILLO, “Did you
get the money from [the CW] when we saw him the other day [April
23rd]?” Defendant CATRILLO replied, “Yeah, I, I took care of
that. Yeah.” The Consultant responded, “Okay, good. Then I
won’t push to get it.” Defendant CATRILLO then indicated that he
had already put the cash to use, noting that “[y]eah, so, you
know, that’s, that’s going out to, uh, you know, to the streets.”

11. On or about May 14, 2009, at approximately 2:44 p.m.,

FBI agents intercepted an incoming call from defendant CATRILLO
to the Consultant’s cell phone. During this conversation,
defendant CATRILLO asked the Consultant if the Consultant knew a
“fellow named [SR], a developer?” The Consultant said, “[SR],
sounds familiar.” Defendant CATRILLO told the Consultant that SR
“might be our friend’s [the CW’s] partner or something. He
called up looking for me because I helped him once with Canal
Crossings and the city’s got a four-acre site on Garfield Avenue
that he’s looking for height and he wanted me to help him with
the mayor and see if there’s any promotions that were done on
it.” The Consultant said, “Okay.” Defendant CATRILLO continued,
“I think it’s the same piece of property [that the CW wanted to
develop],” and the Consultant agreed, “[s]ounds like it to me.”
Defendant CATRILLO said, “So just in case he’s a friend of our
friend [the CW], remember the name [SR]. I have a phone number
too.” The Consultant said, “Okay, very good.”

12. On or about May 14, 2009, at approximately 4:40 p.m.,

FBI agents intercepted an outgoing call from the Consultant’s
cell phone to defendant CATRILLO. During this conversation, the
Consultant said, “The information on that guy [meaning SR] is
that he’s trying to be, ah, a dealmaker between [the CW] and [the
CW’s] partner from Union City and the owner of the property.”
Defendant CATRILLO said, “Then you don’t need him.” Defendant
CATRILLO also said, “Very good, I’m glad I called.” The
Consultant said, “But that’s good information, I very much
appreciate it.”

13. On or about May 26, 2009, at approximately 9:56

a.m., FBI agents intercepted an incoming call from defendant
CATRILLO to the Consultant’s cell phone. During this call,
defendant CATRILLO said: “We’re trying for [the Jersey City
Planning Director] again today?” The Consultant replied: “Yeah,
please.” The Consultant asked defendant CATRILLO: “Should I just
call him or are you going to check it out?” Defendant CATRILLO
said: “I’ll call him right, hold on, I’ll call him on the other
phone.” As the Consultant held, defendant CATRILLO’s end of the
conversation on his other phone could be heard over the
Consultant’s cell phone. Defendant CATRILLO asked the Planning
Director: “Do you have five minutes to share with [the
Consultant]? He wants to ask you about a [certain] project. . .
.” Defendant CATRILLO then asked the Planning Director, “Can I
have [the Consultant] call you now? . . . I’ll send him over to
[a particular extension].” Shortly thereafter, over the
Consultant’s cell phone, the Consultant and the Planning Director
discussed this project. The Consultant indicated that the CW was
interested possibly in purchasing this project.